Physician, heal thyself?

There is this thing about vision. It is sharper when it focuses on the ills of others and practically blind when it comes to your own flaws. There is hardly a school of philosophy/religion which turns an...err...blind eye to this particular character trait in humans. There is something about seeing the 'mote in your brother's eye ignoring the beam in your own eye' in the Bible, for example.

Tiru has this to say about the same subject

Than kutram neeekkip pirarkutram kaangirpin enn kutram aagum iraikku - Tirukkural

He who first cleanses himself of his own faults before assessing the flaws of others is a flawless leader - Loose Translation

You know, that sort of seems obvious. I mean, like, if you have to cleanse yourself of any of the faults that you could possibly see in others, that would well nigh mean cleansing yourself of ALL faults. Ergo, you'd have to end up being flawless.

The point, though, is that you should acknowledge that something which is a flaw in others is also a flaw in you. Essentially, you cannot say that it is ok for me but not for them - the 'Do as I say, not as I do' school of leadership.

There is a story about Mahatma Gandhi where a woman brings her kid to him and asks him to advice the kid not to eat sugar. Whereupon Gandhi asks her to come after two weeks. THEN he tells the kid to stop eating sugar because it was bad for him. The woman asks him why he could not have given this same advice two weeks back. Gandhi says that he himself loved eating sugar two weeks back and had to break the habit himself before he advised the kid to do so. THAT is adherence to cleansing yourself of the flaw before you see it in others.

It is a tough ask for more mundane leaders to cleanse themselves of all their flaws before they lead. At the same time, it is rather tough to carry conviction about, say, punctuality when you enter the office three hours late and lecture the staff about being on time. There has to be some via media - an in-between path where you can work to reduce your own flaws WHILE seeking others to do so as well. Only when you know WHY it IS a flaw, what damage it causes, how difficult it may be to get rid of it and, yet, how important it is to do so - only THEN can you carry conviction as a leader and be SEEN as a flawless leader. Not flawless as in never making a mistake but flawless as in being someone who walks his own talk.

I mean, unless people believe that you truly espouse those values yourself, why would THEY strive to espouse them? As they say, Yatha Raja Thatha Praja. If YOU only preach and don't practise, they too will only preach and not practise.

And put in all their efforts into not getting caught!

The indipensable three of leadership?

I was under the impression that this 'Five best ...' and 'Seven worst...' etc were the result of some recent virus that had infected humanity. Not so, not if I am to just peek into one of the philosophers of my own country. Ah, but I AM being remiss. When such a thing happens, I am not supposed to bemoan but beat my breast and claim how we had done it before everyone else, no?

So, yes, long before the management gurus and their followers caught on to this 'Eight steps to...' etc, there was Tiru who had the same idea. Like, in this, he goes...

Thoongaamai Kalvi Thunivudamai immoondrum neengaa nilaan bavarkku - Thirukkural

Never procrastinating, wisdom and analytical and bold decision-making are the three things that a great leader holds fast to himself - Loose Translation

We are into words with multiple meanings again. This 'Thoongamai' can be literally taken to mean 'not sleeping' which can be interpreted to be 'not sleeping at the switch'. So, it could just be that the leader is called upon to be alert. Alert, yes, but one step further. It also means that the leader HAS to take action when due and not postpone it due to laziness or fear or whatever. To take TIMELY action is what characterises a good leader.

'Kalvi' is just learning or, in other words, knowledge in the most straightforward interpretation. But, for a leader, it cannot be just knowledge. I mean, like, if you want to make profits in tough times, and are cutting labor costs, you know that dispensing with assembly-line personnel will cost you production whereas cutting R&D will not adversely affect anything that year. THAT is knowledge. To remember the long term effects and to balance that against short term needs - THAT requires wisdom. (OR to pivot to a new product altogether rather than cutting costs on the existing product or...). A great leader needs to be knowledgeable, yes, but also should transcend knowledge to make wise decisions.

Thunivudamai is, in one sense, the ability to analyse and come to a decision. It is also the boldness to take decisions, especially risky decisions. So THAT word could mean both - the ability to analyse a situation completely AND the boldness to take decisions in times of uncertainty as can happen when you have incomplete information or in times of great flux.

Whether or not these three qualities are sufficient to make a good leader, one can hardly say. Or, perhaps, one can. After all, wisdom is a catch-all phrase which can incorporate knowledge of a wide variety of things - be it finance, marketing, HR or whatever. But, whether or not it is sufficient to possess these three, it is NECESSARY for the leader to hold on to them. Tiru says so and he is seldom wrong, so...

Listening humility?

There is this thing about philosophers that they give a great deal of respect to humility. The idea of any humble man being worthy of respect is, quite possibly, funny today. The man of respect is the man who flaunts his power, not the man who speaks politely. I mean, when we were praising humility, we also called the open-minded chaps who were willing to see the other person's point of view as liberals. Which made the liberal a polite and humble man who did not espouse the idea that only he was right. Now, though, all sides of any debate are convinced of their rightness and the moronic wrongness of anyone who has the least little thing to say which deviates from their point of view. Humility? What humility?

Tiru does not live today, does he? So, it is no surprise that he said this without the least little fear of being canceled.

Nunangiya kelviya rallaaar vanangiya vaayina raadhal aridhu - Tirukkural

He who is not a discerning listener is incapable of being a polite speaker in public - Loose Translation

Yeah, Tiru actually lived in times where they placed a lot of weightage on convincing others with their debates and not merely shouting them down. If, indeed, you are placed in a situation where the chap you are speaking to is not someone you can merely shout down, you may need this advice.

I mean, yeah, you can walk rough shouldered in Social media. But that is not where you really live, do you? You can hardly think that shouting down your potential Venture Capital provider will get you funds or shouting down your interviewer will get you a job. You do NEED to convince by polite reasoning; calling him a profit-sucking leech is not what will get you the moolah.

To be able to convince politely, you need to be able to be a discerning listener who is able to understand the nuances of what is being said. If you can see beyond what is being said to what is being meant, you can then find a way to satisfy the other's need without sacrificing your own. Like, a lender asking you to pledge your ancestral home is seeking security for his loan - if you can see a way to making him feel secure about his loan either by providing a surety or by pledging something else, you could satisfy him without agreeing to the letter of what he says. For that, you need to have to be a nuanced listener, failing which you could end up screaming about never giving up your home and losing the loan. To be able to speak well starts with being able to listen well.

Listening well is to open your mind, stop filtering everything through the lens of what you want and seeing it like a neutral third party would and assessing the pros and cons impartially. Only that will help you formulate a meaningful and polite response that could carry forth the discussion to a fruitful conclusion.

Oh and yes, Tiru is talking about being a discerning listener to everything. After all, in his times, most learning happened by way of listening to the wise. Thus, to be a bad listener was to end up being an ignorant lout. So there was that as well.

It is the fool who thinks that wisdom lies in non-stop talking. The wise listen and, thus, are listened to. AND it is not the talking but the fact that people listen to you when you talk which makes one shine forth as a wise man.

A desireless life?

There is something in common with most philosophers. They seem to be against the idea of desire. One could easily dismiss that as 'sour grapes' on the grounds that philosophers are only those people who are unable to gratify their desires. Unfortunately for that argument, a leading light of the 'desire is the root cause of sorrow' school of thought is the Buddha, who was a prince and, thus, more capable of gratifying his desires than most. So...

I am sorry for disappointing you if you thought that I was going to say that Tiru came out in support of desire. Not so. He was also a vehement supporter of the anti-desire lobby. As in this...

Inbam idaiyaraa theendum avaavenum thunbaththul thunbam kedin - Tirukkural

There will be everlasting joy if you are rid of desire - that woe of woes - Loose Translation.

It is a rather tough thing, isn't it, to conceive of a desireless existence. I mean, if you desired nothing then what would be the purpose to your life? After all, you get up in the morning with a zest to do something only because you are working to satisfy your desires. Without desire, there is no ambition, there is no progress. No?

The problem is probably that we do not understand whether the philosophers conceive of desire the same way as we do. Or, rather, they probably DO conceive of it in the same way we do. It is just that we are too hypocritical to accept that there ARE things that we may want to do, things that can stoke your ambition and thus fuel progress, that we ourselves may not consider as 'desires'. It is just that we find it convenient to club those things also under desires so that we are absolved of the need to vanquish desire on the pretext of seeking progress.

Tell me, do you seriously think of people who put in time, effort and money in order to feed, clothe or educate the less privileged as pursuing their DESIRES? Do you think that the scientific curiosity of an Einstein or a Hawking or a C.V. Raman was driven only by the pursuit of individual glory? Do you think it is impossible for an industrialist to be driven by goals other than self-gratification?

The cynical point of view is that no industrialist or politician is driven by anything other than the need for gratifying their desires. Even if it IS true, it does not mean that they CANNOT be driven by other goals or aspirations.

So, yes, progress is not inevitably tied to desire though the reality of the day may be that it IS so tied. Desire is related to gratifying yourself. AND when that gratification can only come from outside, you place your happiness at the mercy of the external world. THAT is a sureshot recipe for sorrow. (Like, to want to DO a good job is not necessarily a desire in this context. To want PRAISE for doing a good job - THAT is a desire which places you at the mercy of others.)

Which neatly segues me into that most popular Bhagavad Gita shloka, which people love to quote but very seldom think of practising, perhaps under the belief that good advice has to be given away and not used yourself: Karmanyeva adhikaraste maa faleshu kadachana - which ends up saying the same thing about doing your duty without bothering your head about what you get out of it.

A desireless existence is not necessarily a purposeless existence. The world IS full of sorrow only because almost everyone believes that desires are the root of all purpose!